Court quashed FIR u/s 366 IPC filed against petitioner couple. Held that prosecutrix was major and marriage was voluntary; no kidnapping or abduction established.
Writ petition allowed and the impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings against petitioners quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 44 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23692 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anshika Lodhi And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldip Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Radhey Shyam Yadav Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
Sri Radhey Shyam Yadav, learned counsel for respondent no.4 is not present though the matter has been taken up in the revised list.
Heard Sri Kuldip Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.K.Sand, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 20.8.2018, registered as Case Crime No.893 of 2018m under Section 366 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Mainpuri.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecutrix/petitioner no.1 is a major girl aged about 20 years as per the High School Mark-sheet in which her date of birth is mentioned as "10.7.1999", copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 (at page-26) of the writ petition. He further submits that there was love affair between the petitioner nos.1 & 2 and they both have performed marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals on 23.8.2018 at Arya Samaj Krishna Nagar, Prayag, Allahabad, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He next argued that the petitioner no.1 had voluntarily left her parental home and entered into matrimonial alliance with petitioner no. 2 and that she was major, it cannot be said that any cognizable offence against the petitioners is made out, hence the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that as the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are major and they have voluntarily married, then to conceive in view of the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 (Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.P) decided on 02.08.2013), that, offence has been committed under Section 366 I.P.C., cannot be approved of.
Per contra, learned AGA submitted that the impugned FIR is not liable to be quashed on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Learned AGA has not been able to demonstrate that either the prosecutrix-Smt. Anshika Lodhi was minor on the date of the incident or that she had been kidnapped or abducted by the petitioner nos.2 & 3, in view of the above it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed any cognizable offence. The writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed.
The impugned FIR and all subsequent proceedings taken against the petitioners in pursuance thereof are hereby quashed.
There shall however be no order as to costs.
(Raj Beer Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 17.7.2019/NS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned First Information Report u/s 366 IPC liable to be quashed when the prosecutrix was a major girl who voluntarily married and left her parental home.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.PReferred¶5
Criminal Appeal No. 1142 of 2013 (Sachin Pawar vs. State of U.P)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anshika Lodhi And 2 Others
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Ramesh Sinha
Raj Beer Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
